Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession

PhD Keith O’Herrin, Corinne Bassett, PhD Susan D. Day, EdD Paul D. Ries, PhD P. Eric Wiseman
{"title":"Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession","authors":"PhD Keith O’Herrin, Corinne Bassett, PhD Susan D. Day, EdD Paul D. Ries, PhD P. Eric Wiseman","doi":"10.48044/jauf.2023.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Urban forestry is an emerging profession, yet its professional identity is not clearly defined, nor does it have the full complement of support mechanisms commonly expected or needed by professionals. As a result, urban forest professionals rely on closely allied professions (e.g., arboriculture, forestry) resulting in frustration amongst urban forest professionals and confusion and lack of awareness amongst the general public. Methods: We developed a series of practical but ideal benchmarks for a successful “modern profession” based on features extracted from a review of the literature and precedents from 11 other professions. We then examined a broad array of evidence to identify gaps between the benchmarks and the current reality of the profession. Strength of evidence was assessed, and each benchmark was classified as being supported by established, emerging, or little to no evidence. Results: Gap analysis indicates that while the profession provides an essential service to society, there is a need for improvement in credentialing, public awareness, recruitment into the profession, and support for career advancement. Many gaps result from a lack of coordinated efforts or organized community dedicated to the full scope of urban forest professionals. We identified a misalignment between urban forest professionals and existing professional organizations that are dedicated to closely allied professions. Conclusion: To meet benchmarks for a successful “modern profession,” urban forestry needs professional support explicitly dedicated to urban forestry. The profession cannot meet the future needs of society supported only by borrowed credentials and surrogate professional organizations.","PeriodicalId":373407,"journal":{"name":"Arboriculture & Urban Forestry","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arboriculture & Urban Forestry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2023.009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Urban forestry is an emerging profession, yet its professional identity is not clearly defined, nor does it have the full complement of support mechanisms commonly expected or needed by professionals. As a result, urban forest professionals rely on closely allied professions (e.g., arboriculture, forestry) resulting in frustration amongst urban forest professionals and confusion and lack of awareness amongst the general public. Methods: We developed a series of practical but ideal benchmarks for a successful “modern profession” based on features extracted from a review of the literature and precedents from 11 other professions. We then examined a broad array of evidence to identify gaps between the benchmarks and the current reality of the profession. Strength of evidence was assessed, and each benchmark was classified as being supported by established, emerging, or little to no evidence. Results: Gap analysis indicates that while the profession provides an essential service to society, there is a need for improvement in credentialing, public awareness, recruitment into the profession, and support for career advancement. Many gaps result from a lack of coordinated efforts or organized community dedicated to the full scope of urban forest professionals. We identified a misalignment between urban forest professionals and existing professional organizations that are dedicated to closely allied professions. Conclusion: To meet benchmarks for a successful “modern profession,” urban forestry needs professional support explicitly dedicated to urban forestry. The profession cannot meet the future needs of society supported only by borrowed credentials and surrogate professional organizations.
借来的证书和替代的专业协会:对城市林业专业的批判性分析
背景:城市林业是一门新兴的专业,但其专业身份并不明确,专业人士普遍期望或需要的支持机制也不完善。因此,城市森林专业人员依赖密切相关的专业(如树木栽培、林业),导致城市森林专业人员感到沮丧,公众感到困惑和缺乏认识。方法:我们根据从文献综述和其他11个职业的先例中提取的特征,为成功的“现代职业”开发了一系列实用但理想的基准。然后,我们研究了一系列广泛的证据,以确定基准和当前行业现实之间的差距。对证据的强度进行了评估,并将每个基准分类为有已建立的、新出现的或很少或没有证据支持。结果:差距分析表明,尽管该职业为社会提供了必不可少的服务,但在资格认证、公众意识、职业招聘和职业发展支持方面仍需改进。许多差距是由于缺乏协调一致的努力或有组织的社区致力于全面的城市森林专业人员造成的。我们确定了城市森林专业人员与致力于密切相关专业的现有专业组织之间的错位。结论:为了达到成功的“现代职业”的标准,城市林业需要明确致力于城市林业的专业支持。仅靠借来的证书和代理专业组织的支持,该专业无法满足社会未来的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书